Healy v McNamara - [2025] QCAT 394

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Healy v McNamara [2025] QCAT 394

PARTIES:

MATTHEW HEALY

(applicant)

v

REGAN MCNAMARA

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

Q2461-25

MATTER TYPE:

Residential tenancy matters

DELIVERED ON:

13 October 2025

RECONSTITUTION:

23 September 2025

HEARING DATE:

9 June 2025

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Lember

ORDERS:

1.     The Residential Tenancies Authority is directed to pay the rental bond held in the sum of $2,065.00 to the parties as follows:

(a)     $871.48 to the applicant/lessor, and

(b)     $1,193.52 to the respondent/tenant Member to type or copy order

CATCHWORDS:

LANDLORD AND TENANT – RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES LEGISLATION – COMPENSATION – – residential tenancy dispute – compensation claim by lessor at end of tenancy

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009(Qld) s 13, s 100

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008(Qld) s 184C, s 185, s 188, s 217, s 362, s 415, s 416, s 419

Davidson v J S Gilbert Fabrications Pty Ltd [1986] 1 Qd R 1

Dimond v Lovell [2002] 1 AC 384 Fankhauser v Mission Beach Property Management [2017] QCATA 65
Gagner Pty Ltd t/as Indochine Café v Canturi         Corporation Pty Ltd (2009) 262 ALR 691
Johnson v Perez (1988) 166 CLR 351
Ray White Victoria Point v Simons & Anor [2018] QCATA 162
Stockdale & Leggo v Gordon [2017] QCATA 112

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

What is the application about?

Mr Healy, a lessor, claims the bond held by the Residential Tenancies Authority (RTA) and additional compensation arising from Ms McNamara’s tenancy of his property.
In arriving at this decision, the Tribunal, as reconstituted, has had regard to all material filed in the proceeding and to the audio recording of the hearing on 9 June 2025.
The RTA hold $2,065.00 pending the outcome of this dispute, a sum of $735.00 having been released to Mr Healy with Ms McNamara’s consent for “one weeks rent”.[1]
[1]Response filed 26 February 2025.
It is not disputed that:
(a)Ms McNamara commenced her tenancy on 1 February 2023.
(b)Ms McNamara compiled the entry condition report tendered in evidence in these proceedings and its contents are not in dispute.[2]
(c)The tenancy was captured in two General Tenancy Agreements (GTA):
(i) The first was signed on 30 January 2023 and expressed to commence on “1 February 2023” and to end on “30 January 2024”. Special terms of this first GTA provided that the tenant was responsible for pool maintenance including chemicals and servicing except capital expenses, and that with respect to gas she was to pay for refills to the gas cylinders rented by the lessor, with at least one full bottle to be left at the end of the tenancy. This supplemented standard terms that required the tenant to pay for gas, electricity and water supplied to the premises.
(ii) The second commenced 1 February 2024 and ended 30 January 2025. It was negotiated during an exchange of emails between 24 January 2024 and 30 January 2024. Standard terms again required the tenant…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Healy v McNamara

Details

AGLC: Healy v McNamara [2025] QCAT 394
Case: [2025] QCAT 394
Decision Date: 13 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Healy v McNamara, the dispute involved a landlord and tenant under the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (Vic). The landlord, the applicant, sought compensation for alleged damage to the property at the end of the tenancy, whereas the tenant, the respondent, disputed the claim and argued that any damage was pre-existing. The matter was heard and determined by the Residential Tenancies Authority (RTA) in Victoria.

The primary legal issues before the RTA were whether the damage claimed by the landlord was attributable to the tenant's occupation and whether the tenant was liable for the repair of the damaged property. The RTA had to interpret the relevant provisions of the Act, assess the evidence presented by both parties, and determine the appropriate allocation of the rental bond held by the RTA.

The RTA found that the landlord had failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim that the damage was caused by the tenant. The authority concluded that any damage identified was either pre-existing or not directly attributable to the tenant's occupation. Consequently, the RTA ordered that the rental bond be returned to the tenant, with a portion allocated to the landlord for any legitimate claims. The RTA directed that $871.48 of the bond be paid to the landlord, while the remaining $1,193.52 was to be paid to the tenant.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Residential Tenancies Authority is directed to pay the rental bond held in the sum of $2,065.00 to the parties as follows:

(a) $871.48 to the applicant/lessor, and

(b) $1,193.52 to the respondent/tenant Member to type or copy order

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.